Jassim Alnajadah

Historians View of Vietnam War

There are two ways to get information. Those two ways are how stories are told
throughout history. Stories can be told through a secondary source, Jonathan Colman, who is a
historian of US and British foreign policies during the Cold War, including the role of embassies
and foreign ministries, or through a primary source, Chester L. Cooper. This story is about the
Vietnam War and how the U.S. did not lose the war militarily but they lost it politically. Its told
through firsthand experience from Chester L. Cooper, due to Coopers heavy involvement in
many important organizations during the Vietnam and Cold War. It is then reflected upon by
Colman on how someone as small on the totem pole of politics as Cooper, could have been a big
influence on the outcome of the war if people would have listened to him and not so career
focused. The U.S. lost the war and throughout this reflection, it will be told through Colmans
and Coopers vision on of how the U.S lost although militarily they did well.
When gathering information about an event, one must first examine the sources and
determine their credibility. One of the sources Dr. Jonathan Colman is a very reliable secondary
source due to his studies. Dr. Colman is a historian who writes well thought out views on certain
aspects of war. His views however, are not the most popular by those who has read his work.
Colman has written several publications including but not limited to: The Most Distinguished
Envoy of Peace: Averell Harriman and the Vietnam War in the Johnson Years, The International
History Review; as well as The Bowl of Jelly: The Department of State in the Kennedy and
Johnson Years, 1961-68, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10. The most important one for the
sake of argument is his publication titled Lost Crusader? Chester Cooper and the Vietnam War.

In this publication, Colman uses Coopers experience to argue how politics lost the U.S. the
Vietnam War. Dr. Colmans publication, written in 2012, was based off of Chesters book The
Lost Crusade: The United States in Vietnam, written in 1970.
Jonathan Colman, being a historian and fan of the cold war, wanted to shine light on a
smaller character in the grand scheme of the cold war which is Chester. He believes that all
though under a smaller role, Chester had a much bigger impact on the development of the war. In
the article, Colman first lists off the roles in which Chester has held to better show how equipped
and knowledgeable Cooper was. Then he goes on to break down what allowed Cooper success.
According to Colman, Cooper was a very calm and collective man, with a fun likeable
personality. It was said that Cooper had very little enemies if any. Cooper set on many reforming
and peace organizations until he returned to Washington. This makes it believable that Cooper
could have been as much as a pivotal success that could have been the Vietnam War that Colman,
tries to convey in the publication.
Colman, being specialized in the cold war period, explained a big reason for the U.S. lost.
He believes that the reason to the lost was because of the high classes leading the U.S. Although
the middle classes has a great knowledge and good points for the war, the government would not
listen to them. The government were only listening to the high class and neglecting the lower.
This show how politics had great effect on the war fought. If only the government were more
open minded and listening to everyone's point that would make the war easily won.
Chester L. Cooper takes the reader through real time experiences that lead to U.S.
demise. Although, the source is a primary source it is still a partial source, but some readers
suggest that they feel as if they are experiencing the war itself when reading Coopers book.

Knowing that Cooper spent majority of his career as a public servant and under the political wing
it should make perfect sense into how Cooper feels differently in what caused the result to the
Cold War. Cooper was a United States diplomat in the 1950s and 60s who negotiated some of
the most essential moments during the Cold War. He has been a part of some of the top
organizations in America including: the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency, the National
Security Council, and the State Department, etc. This experience shows how Cooper could have
directly influenced the Vietnam War and why it makes sense to use his source as a source of
knowledge and fact.
Cooper was considered a small guy in the role of politics but he was able to make some
big moves like actually sit down with the president at the time Lyndon B. Johnson. Even though
he had many moments of spot light, apparently his voice didnt carry that much weight around
his peers. When Cooper knew that it takes more than military to win a war, his peers felt that all
they needed was a full force military. Although the military was powerful and they did do very
well in Vietnam, the U.S. was not able to stop the spread of communism and North Korea
eventual takeover. After reading Coopers book, it really put people in his shoes, one reader was
quoted saying, Chester Cooper was there when most of it happened, and even though he pulls a
few punches, he has given us the most revealing and the most important inside story of the war
that we have yet had, or are likely to get for a long time." New York Times writer Ronald Steel.
Cooper had very important decisions to make during his time in those organizations, but
it was not just on Cooper but in fact his whole team. He believes that due to his team and other
government organizations selfishness and career oriented moves rather than looking at the war as
a whole, this lead to a line of failures. For example, Cooper believed that they should not remove
the current president of Vietnam during that time because it will only allow for an easier North

Vietnamese take over. This was thought of, because the U.S. was not knowledgeable of the
Vietnamese and Asian way of living. However, due to Cooper and his team lack of knowledge
and preparation, the president was overthrown and Coopers team failed to keep the peace.
Coopers team withheld the blame for the demise of the Vietnamese and the U.S. Cooper, wanted
to keep the government in line, because although they did not know much about the Asian way
of Life he knew that with the current government in line they could better contain the situation
going on in Vietnam.
Overall, the Vietnam War could have been won if Cooper was stronger on the totem pole
and people believed in his views. It would have also been won if the US organizations would
have worked together and was not so career oriented rather than focusing on the whole problem.
These were the things that Cooper represented and when he left silently, those things left silently
with him which ultimately lead to the demise of the Cold War in Vietnam. This was the main
point that Cooper wanted to highlight in his book The Lost Crusade as well as in Colmans
publication on Cooper.
Cooper wrote the book soon after the war in Vietnam which is why he was able to put the
reader directly in his shoes. Luckily for Cooper he was able to use firsthand experience although
subjective at times, to tell the story of what really happened. Through Coopers experience,
Colman was able to use his knowledge of history and studies on the cold war to understand and
display how Cooper was a key part to the success in the Cold War.
In conclusion, throughout both Colmans and Cooper stories, we learn about the
difference in Primary and secondary sources. We are shown the difference in information and
how learning about an authors work could better let you understand how critical it is to examine

a persons background and sources. For example, Cooper had firsthand experience of the Cold
War, while Colman had a Ph. D. in the studies of the cold war. Cooper gave one personal
experience and could give you the overall view through his eyes, while Colman, could give you a
view that was derived from more than one source and highly evaluated and researched. This is
why a story as interesting as the Cold War and how the Vietnam war was lost, had to be told
through multiple avenues.

Resource:
Political aspect: Colman, J. (2012). Lost crusader? Chester L. Cooper and the Vietnam War,
196368. Cold War History,
http://www.uclan.ac.uk/staff_profiles/jonathan_colman.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/obituaries/chester-cooper-88-a-playerin-diplomacy-for-two-decades-is-dead.html?_r=0